Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States Court of Appeals: For The First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals: For The First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals: For The First Circuit
No. 16-1254
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
Defendant, Appellee.
Before
Deposit Law ("Security Deposit Law"), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 186,
Gen. Laws ch. 186, 15B(7), which includes, inter alia, the
refused to apply Section 15B(7), and soon after denied his class
- 2 -
certification motion on mootness grounds.2 Phillips challenges
should not have been dismissed as moot, and that he was entitled
Ass'n of Schs. & Colls., Inc., 252 F.3d 488, 497-98 (1st Cir. 2001)
Town of Mendon, 769 F.3d 61, 79 (1st Cir. 2014). For this reason
- 3 -
relevant provisions of the Massachusetts Security Deposit Law to
the SJC, and refrain from deciding the merits of Phillips's other
I.
Massachusetts. The lease term lasted from July 20, 2012 to May
return shortly after vacating the apartment on May 20, 2013. After
- 4 -
On August 6, 2013, Phillips filed a class action
that ERM had violated the Security Deposit Law by: (1) not
were deducted from his security deposit, (2) not providing him
cleaning charges from his security deposit. ERM removed the case
the SODA.
judgment. The district court found that ERM did not comply with
Law since Phillips did not receive the required "itemized list of
- 5 -
within thirty days after the termination of his tenancy.5 Id.
second violation, the district court held that ERM forfeited its
also Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 186, 15B(6) (stating that a lessor
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 186, 15B(7). Section 15B(7) awards tenants
5
Phillips emailed ERM to request the return of his security
deposit on May 28, 2013. He claims that ERM sent him his SODA
detailing the charged damages to the apartment in "late May or
Early June," though the record suggests that it was mailed that
same day. Phillips's father, a guarantor of his son's lease, later
sent an email to ERM on June 23, 2013 (thirty-four days after
Phillips had vacated the apartment) asserting that the SODA did
not comply with Section 15B's requirements.
- 6 -
"three times the amount of [their] security deposit or balance
of five per cent from the date when such payment became due,
lessor or his agent fails to comply with clauses (a), (d), or (e)
was excluded from its list "by deliberate choice." Id. at *3.
II.
- 7 -
of law of [Massachusetts] which may be determinative of the cause
Engage, Inc., 544 F.3d 50, 52-53 (1st Cir. 2008); Bos. Gas Co. v.
Century Indem. Co., 529 F.3d 8, 13-15 (1st Cir. 2008).7 We conclude
full measure of relief [he] seek[s]" if the SJC agrees with his
See Easthampton Sav. Bank, 736 F.3d at 50; see also Bos. Gas Co.,
- 8 -
529 F.3d at 15 (certifying questions to the SJC that were
certification "in cases when 'the course [the] state court[] would
The course that a state court would take is not reasonably clear
lose their independent meaning. See Blum v. Holder, 744 F.3d 790,
of statutory interpretation.").
noted that the Security Deposit Law "manifest[s] a concern for the
- 9 -
in inferior bargaining positions and find traditional avenues of
- 10 -
under the Security Deposit Act with more specificity and limited
Id.
provision. See Taylor v. Beaudry, 971 N.E.2d 313, 318 (Mass. App.
statute.").
15B(7). See id. at 909 n.4, 913 (declining to consider the issue
- 11 -
Despite this lack of clarity, the district court made
(7). See Taylor v. Beaudry, 914 N.E.2d 931, 933-36 (Mass. App.
Ct. 2009) (Taylor I), review denied 920 N.E.2d 44 (Table) (Mass.
2009); Carter v. Seto, 2005 Mass. App. Div. 62, 2005 WL 1383337,
at *4-5 (Mass. App. Div. 2005), aff'd, 849 N.E.2d 925 (Table)
(Mass. App. Ct. June 29, 2006), review denied, 853 N.E.2d 1059
the landlord sent the tenant a check covering his security deposit
letter detailing the charges, but the letter was not signed under
right to the entire security deposit. Id. The tenant also claimed
landlord did not return any portion of the security deposit within
- 12 -
thirty days after the end of his tenancy.8 Accordingly, the tenant
sought a judgment for three times the total amount of his deposit,
was not signed under the pains and penalties of perjury and did
- 13 -
charges. Id. Unlike in Taylor I, the letter was dated only
thirty days of the termination of the tenancy and did not do so,
- 14 -
including "the dollar amounts involved, the likely effects of a
to SJC partly because the outcome of the case "ha[d] the potential
authority. See Conille v. Sec'y of Hous. & Urban Dev., 840 F.2d
105, 111 (1st Cir. 1988) (stating that "the area of landlord-
736 F.3d at 53 (quoting Real Estate Bar Ass'n for Mass., Inc. v.
Nat'l Real Estate Info. Servs., 608 F.3d 110, 119 (1st Cir. 2010)).
- 15 -
III.
and our opinion in this case, along with copies of the parties'
So ordered.
- 16 -